Plaintiffs v "Tata"
Federal Appellate Court Denies Effort by Tata America International to Dismiss Nationwide Class Action Lawsuit
Federal Appellate Court Denies Effort by Tata America International to Dismiss Nationwide Class Action Lawsuit and Force Tata's American Workers to Arbitrate Their Employment Law Claims in India
Plaintiffs counsel announced that in a unanimous ruling a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the motion of Tata America International Corporation and its parent corporations Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd., and Tata Sons, Ltd. (collectively referred to as Tata) to compel arbitration in India and dismiss a nationwide class action lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. Lead plaintiff Gopi Vedachalam, a former employee of Tata America International Corporation, alleges in the complaint that Tata denied him and other workers earned overtime and unjustly enriched itself by requiring all of its non-U.S.-citizen employees to endorse and sign over their federal and state tax refund checks to Tata.
The complaint claims that Tata has paid its employees less than promised; has failed to pay its employees overtime pay and has misclassified them as exempt from overtime; and has failed to compensate employees for earned but unused vacation pay. The complaint alleges further that Tata required its non-U.S.-citizen employees to sign power of attorney agreements delegating an outside agency to calculate and submit each employees tax return to state and federal authorities. Tata then required its non-U.S.-citizen employees who received tax refunds from state and federal tax authorities to endorse the tax refund checks and send them back to Tata.
One of Indias largest business conglomerates, the Tata Group reported revenues in the last fiscal year of nearly $62.5 billion. The proposed class consists of thousands of current non-U.S. citizen employees of Tata working in the United States, plus former Tata employees dating back to 2000. Plaintiffs seek compensation and damages for current and former employees who were not paid what they were promised and who were deprived of their tax refunds.
The law firms representing plaintiffs are Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, and Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall LLP, both based in San Francisco, California. Michael Rubin of Altshuler Berzon LLP worked with plaintiffs counsel on the appeal.
Further information about this lawsuit, including a copy of the Courts order, can be found at http://www.lieffcabraser.com/lawsuitagainsttata.htm.
Or by contacting:
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
Kelly M. Dermody, 415-956-1000
or
Rukin Hyland Doria & Tindall LLP
Steven M. Tindall, 415-421-1800 ext. 207
